Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Transportation Research Part A

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/tra

Exploring best practice for municipal e-scooter policy in the

United States
William Riggs *, Matt Kawashima , David Batstone
School of Management, University of San Francisco, San Francisco, CA, USA

A B S T R A C T

The transportation and mobility landscape has changed at exponential rates in recent years. This is particularly evident in the spread and use of
micromobility, primarily via e-scooters, in the United States. It is widely agreed that municipalities need to regulate the deployment of this new form
of mobility to capture some of the benefits that these devices provide but also mitigate the impact and risks associated with their use. This paper
evaluates commercial scooter deployment within municipalities in the United States, and seeks to identify policy trends for regulating e-scooters. As
many communities do not have policies in place, the study seeks to benchmark and develop a policy dialogue addressing e-scooter use and
deployment. The study focuses on three specific policy strategies cities are implementing: the use of pilot programs; vendor limits or caps; and the
inclusion of equity policy. The study finds that tension between these policies has the potential to constrain or accelerate the market adoption of
scooters and that very few communities are designing and adopting environment strategies to regulate scooter use. These policy dialogues are worth
exploration as cities accelerate trends toward micromobility.

1. Introduction

In 2017, electric scooters (e-scooters) began appearing in cities around the United States. Companies rushed to enter the market and
get their vehicles on the streets, even though there were no regulations or permit requirements in place. While these platforms (which
are sometimes referred to as micromobility) were viewed favorably by many as a new means of transportation, others soon viewed
them as a nuisance with reports that scooters were blocking sidewalks, getting thrown in trash cans, and causing injuries (Levin, 2018).
The private e-scooter companies such as Bird, Lime, Skip and Scoot all operated with similar business models (Clewlow, 2018).
Specifically, each company sought to distribute their fleets across a city (with or without city authorization) and encouraged in­
dividuals use smartphone applications to gain access and use their scooters. Riders were then charged a fee to ride – typically, a $1.00
flat rate plus $0.15 per minute.
By summer 2018, many cities started investigating ways of regulating e-scooters. Cities began implementing a variety of regulatory
measures: establishing permit requirements for operators to deploy their vehicles; issuing Request for Proposals (RFPs) for companies
to operate vehicles under temporary pilot programs to study the use of scooters; and in some cases, issuing moratoriums or outright
bans on the deployment and use of scooters.
Since this trend is quite recent, literature and review of the benefits and impacts of e-scooters has been limited. Moreover, many
cities were caught off guard by the rapid deployment of e-scooters in 2018 without any policy in place dictating how scooters could be
deployed similar to the way many cities were blindsided by ridesharing services and the transition to using digital technology for urban
planning and transportation services (Aarian, 2018; Levin, 2018; Riggs, 2018; Riggs, 2016; Riggs & Gordon, 2015). In response, some
cities chose to place outright bans on the rollout of e-scooter services (Fang & Agrawal, 2018). Scooters, however, offer a variety of

* Corresponding author.
E-mail addresses: wriggs@usfca.edu (W. Riggs), mkawashima@usfca.edu (M. Kawashima), batstoned@usfca.edu (D. Batstone).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tra.2021.06.025
Received 4 November 2019; Received in revised form 15 June 2021; Accepted 22 June 2021
Available online 15 July 2021
0965-8564/© 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

benefits to users and to cities by giving access to travelers making short or last mile trips. For instance they (along with other forms of
micromobility like docked and dockless bicycles) are believed to be a potential solution to addressing “the first and last mile issue”
(Clewlow, 2018; Fang & Agrawal, 2018; McKenzie, 2019).
This concept connotes that scooters can help individuals connect readily with other transportation options. For instance, scooters
can be used to replace a short vehicle trip from a prospective rider’s home to their local transit station. Similarly, instead of taking Uber
or Lyft ride from the station to the workplace, an individual can use a scooter instead. These potential scenarios are supported by data
that suggests that the majority of trips made via automobile in the US are short – in fact, 45% of trips in the US are under 3 miles in
length, with the majority of those taken by single individuals (Clewlow & Mishra, 2017; Zarif and Kelman, 2019). Research shows that
micromobility services can help address this issue and expand transportation options for people and that these services have had
efficacy even during the 2020–2021 pandemic (Clewlow, 2018; Riggs & Appleyard, 2020; Riggs & Shukla, 2020).
Another potential benefit of scooters is their small physical footprint; especially compared to cars they require very little space for
storage and parking; although there has been some debate over the how (particularly dockless) microbiology services can be parked in
a manner safe to other roadway or sidewalk users (Brown et al., 2020). This could potentially free up some valuable real estate space
for cities, which could then be used for other purposes. Other less-known and less-certain benefits include reductions in single oc­
cupancy vehicle (SOV) trips and a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions (GHGs); however, there is debate about this due to the fact
that scooters need to be charged and redistributed. Often times, this is performed by someone moving the scooters around in a car or
truck, therefore negating the total climate benefits of scooter trips (Riggs, 2019).
In this context, it is important for cities to develop policy to mitigate and prevent negative impacts associated with scooters such as
blocking access on sidewalks while at the same time also capturing some of the benefits that scooters provide. Based on the limited
body of research and understanding on this subject, this study seeks to provide a baseline understanding of how cities are addressing
this issue from a policy perspective. While other work has attempted to benchmark this policy (Anderson-Hall et al., 2019) this work
seeks to look at best practice. We identify 183 cities with some type of scooter, e-scooter or micromobility policy and classify data for
sample of 61 of these cities to look for commonalities and best practice. The authors do a deep dive into equity questions, attempting to
address whether mobility providers adhere to these policies, whether they achieve their goals, and propose additional policies that
might enhance equity. We do find commonalities around the implementation of pilot programs, including policies on vendor limits or
caps and discussions of equity. We also provide a deeper dive on equity programs and how they achieve goals and can be better
connected to multimodal planners for all travelers. Ultimately, this may help cities develop more effective policy.

2. Background

The integration of disruptive transportation is happening ever more quickly in our cities (Riggs, 2019; Riggs & Beiker, 2020).
Companies such as Bird, Lime and Spin offer first and last mile solutions to individuals in an easy, convenient way, through the touch of
an app (Aarian, 2018). Bird, for example, has over $115 million in funding and has place over 1,600 scooters in San Francisco. The
company “gave more than 95,000 rides to 32,000 different people in just its first 30 days of service in the city”. According to the Bird
website their scooters provide an “unprecedented opportunity to reduce car trips… roughly 40 percent of trips under two miles -
thereby reducing traffic, congestion, and greenhouse gas emissions.” According to the Lime website the scooters offer a 20 + mile
maximum range, solid, stable 8-inch wheels, 14.8 mph maximum speed all at the cost of $1 to unlock and $0.15 per minute to ride.
At the same time the advent of scooter companies has created conflict within cities. San Francisco, Austin, and Santa Monica
received citizen backlash about the presence of these companies in their cities. (Brown et al., 2020; Inman, 2018; Levin, 2018). Many
expressed that companies that sought to interrupt transportation systems do not share the same motives as the governments charged
with providing regulation. For example, many cities have in place regulations that require helmets and limit the riding of scooters and
bikes on sidewalks, thus the influx of shared vehicles create the potential for a host of violations of municipal laws.
Early evidence suggests that European cities are experiencing many of the same growing pains that U.S. cities aim to confront
(Tapper, 2019). Clogged streets with the added traffic of e-scooters, parking chaos, speeding violations and drunk driving violations
are pressing European cities to design new regulations to get in front of the proliferation of e-scooters. While many municipalities are
attracted to the green, low-emission impact on city transport, they are evaluating licensing for e-scooter use and a series of ordinances
that regulate negative behavior.
In the U.S. e-scooters have created clutter on the streets for pedestrians and cyclists (Inman, 2018), and the scooters sometimes end
up in waterways or in trees. The company Spin states that they lose 2.5 percent of its entire scooter inventory every month. Conversely,
Bird offers a potential solution to this parking chaos, requiring users to photograph where they leave their scooter upon completion of
their ride. As a result of these trends, cities are testing new policies for e-scooter use. Policies range the spectrum from requirements of
permitting framework, city / company communication mechanisms, standards with communicating with the public, data re­
quirements, minimum equipment safety standards as well as customer privacy standards (NACTO, 2018).
These kind of policy dialogues exemplify proactive policy as opposed to reactive policy in the face of transportation disruptions. Of
course, this trend in large part responds to a civic backlash to the advent of ridesharing companies like Uber and Lyft, when cities felt
blindsided by new mobility operations from 2012 to 2014 (Brustein, 2018; Huet, 2018). Researchers have found that ridesharing
technologies had great appeal to young individuals with variety of commutes, who were tech-savvy and environmentally inclined
(Alemi et al., 2018; Circella et al., 2016; Circella & Alemi, 2018). They have also found that these forms of new mobility generally
increase total travel, but also fill gaps in the transit network. For example Clewlow and Mishra found that across multiple markets 22%
of trips made via ridesharing were new occurrences that would not have taken place otherwise. (Clewlow & Mishra, 2017). Likewise,
Gehrke found that 59% of trips put new cars on the road (Gehrke et al., 2019), something that seems to confirmed by recent studies of

19
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

the New York market (Schaller, 2017).

Similarly to ridesharing, researchers have found that e-scooters and micromobility platforms can fill gaps in the transportation
network (Clewlow, 2018). Yet at the same time there has been policy tension. Scooters and skateboards have not been commonly
accepted traditionally as urban forms of transportation; not readily acknowledged in policy (Fang & Agrawal, 2018; Kevin Fang &
Handy, 2017). In this content this study investigates how municipalities are addressing the use of e-scooters in the United States,
exploring best practice policy for practicing planners and engineers.

3. Methodology

This evaluation seeks to identify what cities are doing from a policy and regulatory perspective, if anything, to regulate the use and
deployment of e-scooters. The evaluation aligns with the increasing body of work aimed at identifying best practices policies to
facilitate and minimize the negative externalities from new and disruptive transportation innovations as they are deployed (Riggs,
2019). To guide the scope of the evaluation, and identify potential obstacles in the analysis, a logic model is illustrated in Fig. 1, which
compliments more detailed questions evaluation questions provided in Table 1.
The logic model serves as a framework for conducting the evaluation and identifies the various inputs, activities, outputs, and
outcomes as part of this evaluation. It also focuses the evaluation on specific attributes and information collected. This is information is
framed around central research questions:

1) How are cities regulating the number of e-scooter vendors?

2) Are cities implementing pilot programs to study the use of e-scooters?
3) Are cities promoting equitable access to scooter services?

For the purpose of this research these questions frame 5 core policy domains which are evaluated on a national level. Work by
Janssen and others has framed these micromobility policies using 12 attributes across 10 cities (Janssen et al., 2020). This approach
provides a granular evaluation of select locations but is limited in that the scope does not identify broader trends in more diverse
geographies. Our work addresses this limitation and provides a lens of normative micromobility / scooter policy at a national level
using 5 attributes.

3.1. Evaluation design

For the purpose of this evaluation, “best practices” are identified as the overall trend amongst cities that have enacted policy
regulating the deployment of scooters. Due to the rapidly changing regulatory landscape surrounding dockless e-scooters, this eval­
uation utilizes cross-sectional data collected between March 2019 to April 2019. Therefore, this evaluation serves as a “snapshot” of
what e-scooter policy looks like in 2019 — approximately one year after e-scooters first began arriving in many cities. Visual surveys of
various sources of data was the primary method of collecting data for this evaluation. All data gathering was done online and collected
directly from city websites.

3.2. Identifying cities

As a first step cities with scooter deployments were identified. The exact number of cities with scooters is unknown and rapidly
changing as scooters are being deployed in more cities and banned in others. Some research indicates that there were 71 cities with

Fig. 1. Logic Model and Process.

20
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Table 1
Scooter Data Collected.
Data/Attribute Description of Data Evaluation Question Answered
Collected

Scooters in City? Does the city have scooters? Yes or No response. This data confirms whether cities have scooters. All
In some cases, cities only had e-bicycles
Pilot Program? Does the city or has the city implemented a scooter pilot program? Yes or No response Are cities implementing pilot
programs?
Operator Cap? Does city policy place a limit on the number of operators eligible to receive permits to deploy How are cities regulating the number of
scooters? Recorded as numeric value for maximum number of operators or N/A if there is no cap e-scooter vendors?
Spatial Access? Does the city have spatial access policy in its regulations? Yes or No response Are cities promoting equitable access to
scooter services?
Equitable Access? Specific language describing equity requirement

scooters in December 2018 (City of Portland, 2018; Vincent & Chiwaya, 2019). For this evaluation, however, various sources were
compiled in an attempt to get a comprehensive list of where scooters might be. Our survey included cities identified on vendor websites
such as Bird, Lime, Skip, and Scoot, as well as a list of cities with shared dockless services aggregated on the website SmartCitiesDrives.
com. A total of 183 cities were identified and placed into a database. After this a systematic sample was conducted identifying cities
with both that had shared dockless scooters and some form of scooter policy. Cities that were systematically identified but that did not
have a municipal e-scooter policy were omitted from the evaluation. A total of 61 cities were identified, yielding a data set with at­
tributes significant at the 90% confidence interval for cities in the US. Fig. 2 displays the cities that were compiled.

3.3. Identifying policy

Upon identifying cities where e-scooters are deployed, data was collected on specific policy and regulations governing the
deployment of e-scooters. Visual surveys were conducted on city websites to identify specific requirements on scooter operators to
deploy in the city and other requirements. For cities that have policy governing the deployment of e-scooters, data was primarily
collected from scooter pilot program administrative guidelines, policy directives, municipal ordinances, or other applicable guidelines
that cities have in place to regulate scooters. The specific data and attributes that were collected include whether cities have or have
previously implemented a scooter pilot program; whether the city has policy regulating the number of operators eligible for permits;
and whether the city has policy for both spatial and equitable access. Table 1 summarizes the different data collected and why it was
collected for this evaluation.

3.4. Data analysis

After collecting the data identified above for each of the cities, data was analyzed to answer each of the three evaluation questions.
Table 2 summarizes how each of the evaluation questions was evaluated and measured.

4. Results

4.1. Pilot programs

Many cities have implemented pilot programs to study the effects and use of e-scooters before implementing a permanent
permitting system. Results from the study sample found that 54% (33 municipalities) had a pilot program in place or had previously
implemented a pilot program. Approximately 46% (28 municipalities) of the study sample had not implemented pilot programs to
study the use of e-scooters within the community (Fig. 3), although they had established micromobility / e-scooter policy. In all cases
where cities were running a pilot it was a part of more comprehensive and deliberate policy / planning process.

4.2. Operator and fleet caps

Operator caps and operator fleet caps were two methods found to regulate the deployment of e-scooters. Operator caps were
typically structured as limit on the number of operators / vendors (e.g. Lime, Bird, Skip, etc.) that could deploy scooters within a
community, and operator fleet caps were framed to limit the maximum number of vehicles that each operator could deploy in the city.
As shown in Fig. 4, we found that 59% of the cities studied implemented one or both of these types of caps. However, capping operator
fleet sizes was much more common than capping the number of operators. Nearly 51% of cities capped operator fleet size and only 25%
capped the number of operators. The average fleet cap was 500 e-scooters as shown in Fig. 5.

4.3. Equity

Equity policy typically was connected to requirements that municipalities outlined to ensure the equitable distribution and access
to e-scooters by all individuals, regardless of location, race or income within their jurisdiction. These requirements were usually

21
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Fig. 2. Map of Cities Surveyed in Evaluation. A total of 183 cities with shared dockless services was compiled (left); a random sample of those cities was
then collected and studied to ensure cities had e-scooters deployed. A total of 61 cities were ultimately studied (right).

identified in: the permits issued to operators; e-scooter pilot program administrative guidelines; municipal codes and city ordinances;
and the RFPs issued for e-scooter services in cities. The specific equity requirements varied across cities but typically included low-
income payment plans; distribution requirements; geographic caps on the number of scooters; and incentives to increase fleet sizes
based on jurisdiction, or some combination of each of these. A brief description of each of these is summarized below with relevant
examples of how it is implemented in a city.

• Low-income payment plans. Many cities required that operators offer methods for low-income individuals to access and ride
scooters. This typically included options for unbanked customers including waived fees, cash payment options and non-smartphone
payment options.
• Distribution Requirements. Many cities specifically required that operators ensure a specific number or percentage of their fleet
be made available in targeted communities or neighborhoods.

22
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Table 2
Evaluation Questions & Measurements.
Evaluation Question How is Answered/Measured?

How are cities regulating the number of e- Measured as a percentage of the number of cities that have limits on # of vendors vs cities that do not have limits on
scooter vendors? # of vendors.

AND

For cities that have limits, a breakdown of these limits is provided.

Are cities implementing pilot programs? This will be measured as a percentage – cities with pilot programs vs without pilot program.
Are cities promoting equitable access to This will be measured as a percentage – cities with equity policy vs without equity policy. Some cities may also have
scooter services? spatial access requirements that relate to equity policies.

Fig. 3. Percent of Surveyed Cities With and Without Pilot Programs.

25
59% of cities studied implemented either fleet or operator caps

Fig. 4. Proportion of Study Cities that Utilize Either Operator and/or Fleet Caps. 59% of cities studied implemented either fleet or operator caps.

o St. Louis, MO − 20% of operator fleets had to be deployed in the City’s “Target Neighborhoods”.
o Oakland, CA − 50% of operator fleet had to be deployed in “Communities of Concern” as designated by the Metropolitan
Transportation Commission, the region’s metropolitan planning organization (MPO).
o Portland, OR - A total of 100 scooters per operator was required to be deployed in in East Portland.
• Capping Number of Vehicles. Some municipalities capped the number of vehicles in certain spatially restricted areas of a city to
encourage distribution to other parts of the city.
o St Paul, MN - A maximum of 150 vehicles/operator could be deployed in the Downtown Entertainment District, in attempts to
encourage vehicle deployments elsewhere in the city.
• Incentives. Some municipalities offered incentives to operators(s) if the they committed to deploy a specified number of scooters in
targeted area(s) of a city. The incentive was typically in the form of additional vehicles beyond a municipal vehicle cap.
o Tucson, AZ - Operators could deploy an additional 250 scooters if they are deployed in Areas of Disadvantage.
o Kansas City MO - Operators had the ability to deploy an addition 500 scooters if deployed in Lower Life Expectancy Zip Code areas
with proof of rebalancing throughout the day.

Approximately 56% of cities in the study sample identified equity requirements for operators in order to deploy within their
jurisdiction. In the study sample, a total of 3 municipalities, or 5% of the study sample, were “studying or developing” equity policy.
This response referred to municipalities that did not identify specific requirements for operators in ensuring equitable distribution of
scooters but indicated that equity was being considered or reviewed. In Arlington County, Virginia, for example, the e-scooter pilot

23
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Fig. 5. Distribution of Fleet Size Caps. For cities that implemented fleet size caps, the most common maximum size was 500 vehicles/operator.

program specified the need for data to “understand the equity of impacts” and “equity implications” of the scooter program but did not
identify specific requirements (City of Arlington, 2018). In Long Beach, California, staff were preparing a staff report identifying
requirements for equitable distribution of scooters (Saltzgaver, 2018). In San Diego, California, a city council member provided
recommendation to the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee to include equitable distribution requirements on vendors for the
city’s future e-scooter regulatory framework (Bry, 2019).
The remaining 39% of municipalities in the study sample had not implemented any policy or requirements for spatial or equitable
distribution of e-scooters. Fig. 6 summarizes this breakdown.
Interestingly, cities that implemented pilot programs were more likely to have equity policy in place than cities that did not
implement a pilot program. As shown in Fig. 7, 70% of cities that implemented pilot programs had an equity policy in place, while only
39% of cities without pilots had equity policy in place.

5. Discusssion

As seen in the data there has been a high degree of consistency in some areas of e-scooter policy, for example the use of cautious
pilot deployments and the use of fleet caps to regulate their proliferation among many vendors competing for users, yet there have also
been notable places where policies vary widely. Most notably this variance is in the area of equity policy and efforts to spatially
distribute scooter resources through a city. While vendors have argued that fleet caps limit the ability to provide more vehicles in some
locations over others, cities have generally disagreed and used policy to require a certain number of scooters in one location over
another. This can be seen in the cases of St. Louis, Oakland and Portland. The example of St. Paul provides a case where a fleet cap and
location restrictions are combined to target e-scooter policy around a very specific location. From a use standpoint, it remains to be
seen if these policies are effective at encouraging the distribution of these vehicles across cities, and that is an opportunity for future use
as data becomes more available from micromobility companies.
At the same time, it is worth underscoring that research clearly shows that fleet caps are being used by cities to constrain market
acceleration by private companies and to limit the “flooding” of the market that occurred with TNCs and e-bikes pre-2018. This is
despite research that suggests the mere presence of dockless bike and scooter systems tend to generate longer trips with service to

5%

Fig. 6. Percent of Surveyed Cities With Equity Policy.

24
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Fig. 7. Relationship Between Pilot Program Implementation & Equity Policy.

lower density, less accessible areas when compared to the trips generated by traditional docked services (Lazarus et al., 2020). Many
cities may feel tied to these legacy platforms that they have invested in despite the service accessibility disadvantages (perhaps for fear
that they might become stranded assets). It is worth noting that e-scooter equity policies may not have the efficacy that cities believe
and may undermine the financial feasibility of broader equity policy when a proportion of vehicles are requiring to be dedicated to one
geographic location or socio-demographic concentration area—particularly when these locations are less densely populated.
It is also of note that we found limited policy targeting built environment solutions, which literature indicates can be highly
effective at shaping both consumer and company behaviors. Considerations of street allocation, right-of-way separation, and speed
limitations, have not been considered, although it is conceivable these measures could be effective at not only incentivizing scooter
demand, but also balancing modal priorities on the street, particularly between bicyclists, pedestrians and scooter riders. According to
US Department of Transportation survey data, half of all trips in the US are three miles or less in length, a distance widely regarded as
feasible for modes that fall within micromobility. Yet built environment and civil engineering policy on how streets are designed has
lagged the dynamism and flexibility of the nimble startup companies which are introducing these new technologies in cities. Most
policies and permitting around micromobility are happening at the local level, yet the way state DOTs design and control access to
state routes has a significant influence on where and how people can use micromobility. For example, the inclusion of protected
bikeway facilities on state routes by DOTs could remove barriers and encourage the use of micromobility devices. A 2020 Boston
Consulting Group study of “micromobility archetypes” that indicate favorable conditions for e-scooter deployment, concluded that
about 750 cities in Europe and the USA could effectively utilize micromobility to benefit their citizenry, which is more than double the
active markets that currently exist (Rose et al., 2020). The authors highlight that “well-planned investment in infrastructure” is needed
to address safety and traffic complexities.
Clearly new dialogues are needed; and all of this could help cities release new ways that roadway policy, typologies, traffic flow and
yielding expectations may need to adapt to new forms of mobility. In this sense, policy must be adaptable and provide a continuum of
definitions that do not solely focus on scooters but on other new forms of mobility, from skateboards to pogo sticks and hoverboards to
Segways, as shown in the conceptual graphic provided in Table 3.

6. Conclusion

As illustrated by our results, there are distinct trends in how cities are regulating e-scooters and implementing policy. Many are
implementing caps on the number of scooters allowed, and many are attempting to establish equity policy to make sure that these
forms of mobility meet those who need it most. At the same time, many cities still may be evaluating their approach to new forms of
disruptive mobility more broadly. Results indicate that there may not be a “one-size fits all” approach to regulating e-scooters. Dif­
ferences in municipality size, geography, climate, and other factors may contribute to different policies and approaches such as the
discrepancies identified in the above data. Based on the above, the following suggestions are provided for cities looking to provide
policy on e-scooters and other forms of micromobility:

• Cities should explore implementing a pilot program to study policies that best align with their goals and objectives.
• Cities should consider placing vehicles caps on the number of e-scooters yet be attentive to demand in order to have the flexibility
for the market to adjust increasing and decreasing the number of vehicles (e.g. dynamic fleet caps or performance-based caps) while
not working against equity policies.

25
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Table 3
Conceptual Framework for Roadway / Traffic Flow Design Policy by User (Source CalTrans District 4).
Mode Max Can be Sidewalk Class I Class II Class IV Non-access- Can be
motor- operated path bike lane bikeway controlled operated
assist without a highway w/ without a
speed license posted speed helmet
(mph) limit > (XX) mph

Pedestrian N/A
2 4

Wheelchair N/A
2 4

Motorized
2 4
Quadricycle or
Tricycle
Electrically 15
16+ 1 1 1 1 (35) 1, 3
motorized board
Motorized scooter 15
1 1 1 (25, up to 18+
35) 1, 3
Bicycle (non- N/A
motorized) 1 18+

Electric bicycle 20
class 1 (pedal 1 1 1 18+
assist) or class 2
(throttle assist)
Electric bicycle 28
1 1 1
class 3 (higher
speed, pedal
assist)
Motor vehicle N/A

• Cities should include equity policy in their requirements but also evaluate and monitor its efficacy, identifying how they will ensure
compliance and spatial distribution.

While more research is needed explore the behavioral response to these policies, as disruptive transportation continues to accel­
erate, adaptive approaches will ensure cities and companies can work together to the most accessible mobility portfolio in the most
sustainable and equitable way possible.

Credit authorship contribution statement

William Riggs: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Writing - review & editing, Investigation, Visualization, Supervision.
Matt Kawashima: Conceptualization, Writing - original draft, Investigation, Visualization, Supervision. David Batstone: Writing -
review & editing.

Declaration of Competing Interest

The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to
influence the work reported in this paper.

References

Aarian, M., 2018. The Love of the People Isn’t Enough to Keep Shared Electric Scooters Rolling. Wired Magazine. http://www.wired.com/story/shared-electric-
scooters-rolling/.
Alemi, F., Circella, G., Handy, S., Mokhtarian, P., 2018. What influences travelers to use Uber? Exploring the factors affecting the adoption of on-demand ride services
in California. Travel Behaviour and Society 13, 88–104. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tbs.2018.06.002.
Anderson-Hall, K., Bordenkircher, B., O’Neil, R., Scott, S.C., 2019. Governing Micro-Mobility: A Nationwide Assessment of Electric Scooter Regulations.
Transportation Research Board 98th Annual MeetingTransportation Research Board.
Brown, A., Klein, N.J., Thigpen, C., Williams, N., 2020. Impeding access: The frequency and characteristics of improper scooter, bike, and car parking. Transportation
Research Interdisciplinary Perspectives 4, 100099. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.trip.2020.100099.
Brustein. (2018). Electric Scooters Are Giving U.S. Cities Uber Déjà Vu. Bloomberg. https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-04-18/electric-scooters-are-
giving-u-s-cities-uber-d-j-vu.
Bry, B. (2019). Micromobility Regulation Recommendations Memo. https://www.sandiego.gov/sites/default/files/19.2.6_signed_memo_to_ati_committee_scooters.
pdf.

26
W. Riggs et al. Transportation Research Part A 151 (2021) 18–27

Circella, G., Alemi, F., 2018. Chapter Five—Transport Policy in the Era of Ridehailing and Other Disruptive Transportation Technologies. In: Shiftan, Y.,
Kamargianni, M. (Eds.), Advances in Transport Policy and Planning, Vol. 1. Academic Press, pp. 119–144. https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.atpp.2018.08.001.
Circella, G., Fulton, L., Alemi, F., Berliner, R. M., Tiedeman, K., Mokhtarian, P. L., & Handy, S. (2016). What Affects Millennials’ Mobility? PART I: Investigating the
Environmental Concerns, Lifestyles, Mobility-Related (National Center for Sustainable Transportation Research Report). University of California, Davis, Institute
of Transportation Studies. https://ncst.ucdavis.edu/project/ucd-ct-to-11/.
City of Arlington. (2018). September 19, 2018 Board Agenda. http://arlington.granicus.com/MetaViewer.php?view_id=&clip_id=3554&meta_id=179612.
City of Portland. (2018). Shared Electric Scooter Pilot. https://www.portlandoregon.gov/transportation/77294.
Clewlow, R. (2018, July 24). The Micro-Mobility Revolution. Populus AI. https://medium.com/populus-ai/the-micro-mobility-revolution-95e396db3754.
Clewlow, R. R., & Mishra, G. S. (2017). Disruptive Transportation: The Adoption, Utilization, and Impacts of Ride-Hailing in the United States (Research Report UCD-
ITS-RR-17-07). University of California, Davis, Institute of Transportation Studies. https://itspubs.ucdavis.edu/wp-content/themes/ucdavis/pubs/download_pdf.
php?id=2752.
Fang, K, & Agrawal, A. (2018). Electric Kick Scooters on Sidewalks in Virginia but Not in California? A Review of How States Regulate Personal Transportation
Devices. Mineta Transportation Institute. http://transweb.sjsu.edu/research/1713-WP-Regulating-Scooters.
Fang, Kevin, Handy, S., 2017. Skateboarding for transportation: Exploring the factors behind an unconventional mode choice among university skateboard
commuters. Transportation 1–21. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11116-017-9796-9.
Gehrke, S. R., Felix, A., & Reardon, T. G. (2019). Substitution of Ride-Hailing Services for More Sustainable Travel Options in the Greater Boston Region.
Transportation Research Record, 0361198118821903. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198118821903.
Huet, E., 2018. Uber’s Global Expansion In Five Seconds. Forbes. https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2014/12/11/ubers-global-expansion/.
Inman. (2018, May 18). Real estate agents see electric scooter boom as mixed blessing. WFG National Title Insurance Company. https://national.wfgnationaltitle.
com/2018/05/18/real-estate-agents-see-electric-scooter-boom-as-mixed-blessing/.
Janssen, C., Barbour, W., Hafkenschiel, E., Abkowitz, M., Philip, C., Work, D.B., 2020. City-to-City and Temporal Assessment of Peer City Scooter Policy. Transp. Res.
Rec. 2674 (7), 219–232. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361198120921848.
Lazarus, J., Pourquier, J.C., Feng, F., Hammel, H., Shaheen, S., 2020. Micromobility evolution and expansion: Understanding how docked and dockless bikesharing
models complement and compete – A case study of San Francisco. J. Transp. Geogr. 84, 102620 https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.102620.
Levin, S. (2018, April 17). San Francisco’s scooter war: City hits back as “unlawful” schemes flood streets. The Guardian. https://www.theguardian.com/technology/
2018/apr/17/san-francisco-electric-scooter-schemes-backlash-cease-desist.
McKenzie, G., 2019. Spatiotemporal comparative analysis of scooter-share and bike-share usage patterns in Washington, D.C. J. Transp. Geogr. 78, 19–28. https://doi.
org/10.1016/j.jtrangeo.2019.05.007.
NACTO. (2018, July 11). NACTO Releases Guidelines for the Regulation and Management of Shared Active Transportation. National Association of City
Transportation Officials. https://nacto.org/2018/07/11/shared-active-transportation-guidelines/.
Riggs, W. (2019). Disruptive Transport: Driverless Cars, Transport Innovation and the Sustainable City of Tomorrow. Routledge.
Riggs, W. (2018). Technology, Civic Engagement and Street Science: Hacking the Future of Participatory Street Design in the Era of Self-driving Cars. Proceedings of
the 19th Annual International Conference on Digital Government Research: Governance in the Data Age, 4:1-4:6. https://doi.org/10.1145/3209281.3209383.
Riggs, William. (2016). Mobile responsive websites and local planning departments in the US: Opportunities for the future. Environment and Planning B: Planning and
Design, 0265813516656375. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813516656375.
Riggs, William, & Appleyard, B. (2020). Exploring the Implications Travel Behavior During COVID-19 for Transit: Potential for Ridesharing and Carsharing (SSRN
Scholarly Paper ID 3758968). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3758968.
Riggs, William, Beiker, S.A., 2020. Business Models for Shared and Autonomous Mobility. In: Meyer, G., Beiker, S. (Eds.), Road Vehicle Automation 7. Springer
International Publishing, pp. 33–48. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-52840-9_4.
Riggs, William, & Gordon, K. (2015). How is mobile technology changing city planning? Developing a taxonomy for the future. Environment and Planning B: Planning
and Design, 0265813515610337. https://doi.org/10.1177/0265813515610337.
Riggs, William, & Shukla, S. (2020). Unique Computational Methods to Model Rideshare Behavior and Estimate Applications for Transit (SSRN Scholarly Paper ID
3760929). Social Science Research Network. https://papers.ssrn.com/abstract=3760929.
Rose, J., Schellong, D., Schaetzberger, C., & Hill, J. (2020). How E-Scooters Can Win a Place in Urban Transport (p. 20). Boston Consulting Group. https://www.bcg.
com/publications/2020/e-scooters-can-win-place-in-urban-transport.
Saltzgaver. (2018, November 7). Long Beach officials extend scooter pilot program for three more months. Press Telegram. http://www.presstelegram.com/long-
beach-officials-extend-scooter-pilot-program-for-three-more-months.
Schaller, B. (2017). Unsustainable? The growth of app-based ride services and traffic, travel and the future of New York City. Report by Schaller Consulting, Brooklyn
NY.
Vincent, B., & Chiwaya, N. (2019). Map: Watch the electric scooter boom spread across the U.S. NBC News. https://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/e-scooters-
expansion-map-n998106.
Zarif, Pankratz, & Kelman. (2019). Micromobility is the future of urban transportation. Deliotte. https://www2.deloitte.com/insights/us/en/focus/future-of-
mobility/micro-mobility-is-the-future-of-urban-transportation.html.

27